I just finished reading the first 35 pages of the online manual for Terabyte's Image For Windows.You've said that you highly recommend this software. And now I know why you said that you would help me set it up.After just reading the first 35 pages, (out of 235) my head is spinning.This software makes Ghost look like child's play (Ghost was easy to setup, and understand)You also said I can use BBM to image C: drive. I can buy IFW for $38.50 and that price doesn't include BBM which I already have. I'm not concerned about the extra money if buying IFW is the better way to go.So, I would like to hear your thoughts?

The IFW manual can be a nightmare. Use it for reference rather than reading start to finish because you won't use most of the special switches. They are there because individuals have requested them. TeraByte Unlimited makes three imaging apps. Image for DOS (which you have), Image for Linux and Image for Windows. They all create the same image and each can restore images created by the other two apps. There is a Simple Mode where you can image and restore with 3 to 4 mouse clicks but I don't use it.

If you image infrequently just use your IFD. IFD does offline imaging. If you image frequently or desire to image while Windows is running, get IFW. An IFW purchase is valid for 5 home computers and includes IFL and IFD.

Speed wise, IFL is the fastest and IFD is the slowest. I use IFL for restores.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.The fact that IFD comes with BBM, that is what I'll use.One question I have, that I can't find a answer to, is there any problem with storing the image I create with IFD to my external HDD, then restoring that image back to a SSD?That might sound like a beginners question, but with SSD I am new to them, and when were talking about backing up C: drive, it can't fail.Is there a way to validate the image I create with IFD that comes with BBM? Or do I need to test it out with another drive?Assuming that there's no difference using a HDD or a SSD, that only spare drives I have are HDD.So with those questions out of the way, how do I set this up?

My external enclosure and my PC has a eSATA connection, if that would work? I used that connection with Ghost. (come to think about it, the last image I made with Ghost, I used USB)But if not, I can add another drive inside.

I've never been a fan of imaging software that works from within Windows live--well, for example the Ghost problem you are having where you can no longer get the C:/ drive to show up! But, I have not heard of similar problems with Image for Windows.

What say you Brian? Are there know issues using Image for Windows that causes it to choke from within Windows?

If you want that type of imaging software, then you might want to consider getting the TeraByte's suite--so you can do your imaging from within Windows like you have been doing with Ghost.

Are there know issues using Image for Windows that causes it to choke from within Windows?

Since PowerQuest Drive Image I've been a fan of live imaging. There has been heated discussion about the merits of live vs cold imaging but it's rare to hear of someone who isn't a live imaging user these days. Congratulations NightOwl. The heated discussion, more warm than heated, will probably start again arguing the merits of classic live imaging vs metadata live imaging.

I've never had an issue with IFW backups or restores. Since metadata imaging was introduced a few versions ago I've changed from using PHYLock to VSS. No problems, probably easier. TeraByte recommendation.

Don't ask me to describe how metadata imaging works as I can't explain it to myself. What is clear is it only applies to Changes Only images, differentials and incrementals. The full image is created as it was in the past except there is an extra metadata hash file which is the basis for future Changes Only images. When you create or restore a Changes Only image with "metadata" selected as an option, create and restore are much faster. Metadata imaging can be done online or cold. IFW, IFL and IFD support metadata imaging.

Macrium Reflect has been doing metadata imaging for a few years and I haven't read of any complaints. TeraByte has added this option in the last few months and does provide a caution message. "NOTE: You should only use this option if you understand its impact on restore operations." TeraByte Support was asked what this meant and provided this "clear" answer...

"For normal backups that don't use /usemd, you can continue to use either.VSS is recommended for /usemd because of open files that stay open nearlyall the time that have only updates over existing data (noadditions/truncations) and which metadata is not updated until the file isclosed. In windows 10, there are a lot of these type of caching files whichare also set to not update any timestamp information even when the handle isclosed. For those files, the only metadata change may be the USN when theUSN Journal is enabled on the volume. Sticking with those type of files(ones where there are no timestamp updates at all, and only a USN updatewhen the USN Journal is enabled); when VSS starts, it triggers the USN toupdate on the open file. When PHYLock starts and even though requests bothlocking and volume flush on the volume, Windows ignores and does not updatethe USN on the files. The difference can be explained with an example:Take file X that has no timestamp updates, file updates with no appending ortruncation, does have USN updates. Backup A includes file X, Backup B, Cthe file X was not changed and therefore data used from A. Backup D, FileX is open and has been updated but the USN is still as it was in A, B, C.The file data is backed up both using VSS and PHYLock, the difference is inthe VSS version USN is different than ABC, PHYlock the same as ABC. Nowfile X is closed with no other updates other than what was already doneprior. Backup E VSS version would skip the data and use what is in D,PHYLock version would see change and backup the data in to E. Now it'stime to restore, if we just booted and restored back to B, all fine in allversions, however, if you first restored D version then right after that theB version, the D restored with VSS version will have a USN different than Bso will restore file X data from B, PHYLock version has the same USN soignores restore file X data. So the PHYLock restored version of B has D'sdata for file X. The byte-for-byte validation would confirm and fail sinceit's done over the entire data. Of course these are special files, specialrestores, but to ensure best metadata state, VSS should be used (If Windowswere changed to flush the metadata of open handles on lock or volume flushrequest, then the difference goes away at the metadata level and eitherwould give the same metadata results)."

TeraByte has added this option in the last few months and does provide a caution message. "NOTE: You should only use this option if you understand its impact on restore operations." TeraByte Support was asked what this meant and provided this "clear" answer...

It was *clear* to me!

Let me translate:

You are a fool to use MetaData imaging while Windows is live. Windows has files that are *open*, and Windows does not respond to *normal* requests to close those files, or at least update their status when asked.

You will be unable to restore correctly from the resulting image. You will get a *validation* error saying your restored backup has failed, but we can not tell you what has failed, or how to recover from that failure.

You're on your own, and good luck!

TeraByte just hammered home the nail in the coffin of live *hot* imaging! Nothing is mentioned, but I'm guessing that if *cold* off line MetaData imaging is used, then the *opened* files and non-updated MetaData file problems are non-existant.

I, personally, would avoid live Windows MetaData imaging like the plague if your backup images are important to you!

But, that's just me ! I will use *cold* imaging with confidence--or, maybe *live Windows* hot imaging that has a proven track record that does not come with the above TeraByte disclaimer!

I hope the *classic* hot imaging using TeraBytes software has a *fool-proof* track record!

There's absolutely nothing, including how fast a backup or restore can be done, that will motivate me to use a backup system that is not *rock solid* in its ability to help me recover from whatever disaster might befall my computing system.

So, there .... !

(See NightOwl's chin sticking out waiting for someone to take a swing at it !)

Metadata backup/restores are popular in the group who don't separate their data from the OS partition. A few minutes to restore the OS partition has advantages over a one hour restore. I also suspect that the dangers of metadata backup/restores are more theoretical than real. In the same way live backup/restores haven't caused practical issues in over ten years of use. TeraByte has introduced metadata backup/restores for those who are interested but classic backup/restores will remain the mainstay.

In my case I'm using metadata backup/restores on my test computer and classic backup/restores on my main computer. My OS partition is lean and mean and a classic restore takes 2 minutes as opposed to a metadata restore taking 1 minute. SSD to SSD. "So what" in time. But I'm experimenting with metadata backups on my data partition which contains 400 GB of used space. (I'm still using data backup software too)

Saturday I followed reply #58 using my eSATA connection.It only took a little less than 30 min to write the backup image to my external drive, and at the end it said (Completed Successfully) So that's where I'm at right now.